"German multicultural society has failed" - Merkel

[joea]

Might as well make my first political post after a long absence a hot topic. :haha:

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel: "lmmigrants should learn to speak German"
Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed", Chancellor Angela Merkel says.
She said the so-called "multikulti" concept - where people would "live side-by-side" happily - did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate - including learning German.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451

I say good for her, I support immigration and like learning about different culutres but the pendulum has gone too far to accepting everything. My folks were all for integrating and both speak fluent English and French (as they emigrated to Quebec before moving out to the West Coast). I speak pretty good French living here even though I am not Swiss and have picked up a bit of German as well. Most of all, while every society has some diversity of customs there has to be common principles that everyone abides by.

[tater]

"Melting pot" FTW.

"Multiculturalism" didn't need to be coined as a word when they already had the right word ready to use: "Balkanization."

Immigration should be a contract. The nation taking the immigrants promises to treat the newcomers fairly, and as valued members of society—they promise the immigrants that after the process is complete, they are no different than a family that has been there for centuries. In return, the immigrants have the responsibility to integrate themselves into that society as well as they can. If they have values that are fundamentally at odds with that nation, they should in good faith not bother immigrating there. If it is found that a significant % of applicants from a certain country fail to integrate acceptably, then the quotas from those states should be slashed (and the applicants vetted for factors that improve their chances of integration), or even cut to zero.

[SteamWake]

Only now they realize this??

Whats that saying about closing the barn door after the horses have left?

[Oberon]

I wondered when someone would post about this...this is going to be a long thread, so I should imagine the time to get a pot of tea on the boil is now.

I suspect that Germany will face a lot of flak for this statement, and the Nazi card will be played very early on, if it hasn't been played already. However, the simple truth of the matter is...IMHO anyway...she's right. It's a very rare case that two or more cultures can exist side by side without one trying to dominate the other. It takes a brave person to speak out against the crowd of those who are determined to make it work even to the point of condemning anyone who says that it cannot, however will this lone voice in the EU crowd of multiculturalists be heard? I doubt it, and it will be washed away in the next German election, however I suspect that it will be just the first voice as we approach the balancing point. We had one gentleman, many years ago, called Enoch Powell, who made a speech which has become quite famous, and which I reckon will get some more air time before the century is out, and it was dubbed the 'Rivers of Blood' speech, the full text of it is below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

Naturally, this speech was jumped upon by the far-right and as such has oft been derided by those who would distance themselves from such people in the wake of National Socialist Germany and the Second World War. It is a hot speech, and anyone who quotes from it or aligns themselves with it is often derided and/or forced to resign because in 'modern society' you are dictated that you must believe in multi-culturalism or you are a denounced as racist and/or right-wing.
Where will it all end? No-one can possibly know, but perhaps there will be Rivers of blood...

[August]

Only now they realize this?

Teddy Roosevelt had the right idea:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.

We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...

We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

[Schroeder]

I was actually pretty surprised that any German politician would have the guts to say that out loud (though it wasn't until Mr. Sarrazin wrote a controversial book about that topic that sparked the discussion about this in Germany). I hope it's more than just rhetoric this time and that something is really done about that problem, but I'm actually not holding my breath.

[Skybird]

One has to see that in the current situational context. In Germany, we have had a series of book releases in the past months, namely "Das Ende der Geduld" by a judge for youth crimes reporting about the pointlessness of current criminological and legal sanctions against the very intense crime rates and brutality amongst Arab and Turkish juveniles (the judge meanwhile has commited suicide), the debate about former Federal Bank director Thilo Sarrazin's book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" where he fires a full broadside of official federal statistics illustrating that Muslim migratiuon causes Germany more problems than gains, and a general debate about the increasingly growing problem of mobbing, violence and discrimination against German students at public schools with sufficient numbers of Muslim/Araba/Turkish kids so that they can form dominating subgroups and gangs that terrorise German boys and girls and even teachers.

This debate has led to alarming signs of self-censorship that certain political and ideological groups demand in order to "solve" these problems by making it a collective obligation to ignore them and to beautify them. However, it seems a majpoirty of Germans i no longer buying it, having opposed and spoken out against politician's usual habit to nice-talk these porblems, inmstead giving immense support to Islam-critics and migration-critics. You also have to know that different to several other Wetsern nations, Germany alloed un discriminated migration, not selecting in advance what kind of specialists and educated people it could need, and what not. This led to most migrants coming to Germany not becasue they have educational specialisation to offer, but to participate in the enjoying of the benefits and sopcial caretaking of the German social system (statistics show this very clearly.) Sarrazin has won enomous popularity with his book (becoming the best sold non-fictional bestseller in Germany after the war!), and now politicians of the former conservative parties (that has moved massiovely away from conservatism in the Merkel-years in an attempt to win the left voters) see that people threaten to leave them standing alone in the rain. So they now try to gain back a stand in the shift of public opinion by first having chracater-assassinated Sarrazin, which did not work too well, and now leaving him alone and using his statements for their own causes. It is obvious that "multikulti" in Germany has failed with regard to Muslim parallel-societies that have formed up instead of integrating. Whether or not these new slogans by Merkel and Seehofer are something more than just lip-confessions born by mere opportunism, remains to be seen.

That the debate on Muslim migration alreadsy is mixed with a debate oin migration in general, is not helpful. Both groups do not compare, we have no problems with migration in general, only with that fromMuslim countries, namely Araba countries and - dominating - Turkey. Turkey on it'S behalf has understood that the winds are chnaging too. Just two years ago, EWrdoighan has publicly demanded in Cologne that Turks in Germany should stay Turkish and should reject integration, now all of a sudden he and Gül pick new words, saying that Turks should integrate, and now should learn German fluidly and without accent (what two years ago they had called a crime against humanity). They realise that they are in danger of loosing influence, since Germany jast has started at three universities to offer courses to educate and qualiufy German-raised Imams (so far they are being sent in by the Turkish ministry of religion and do not speak German in most cases, nor do they know the country, and Gewrman authorities do not control at all who it is that they are letting in).

That the debate on seeking asylum also is not kept separate from that on Muslim migration and lacking will to integrate in Germany, also is not helpful, nor is it that the political left and the islamophile appeasers once again try to gag the disucssion, and using the rethorical overkill weapon of accusing everybody critical of these things of right-winged extremism, Nazism and racism. What these people want is a German, pro-islamic Jacobin tyranny, regulating strictly what is a,llowed not only to say, but to think. The witch-hunting against Sarrazin has represented such an excess that so far is beyond any example in German history.

70-80% of Germans, so say polls from this year, are strictly against EU-membership of Turkey. One half up to two thirds consider Islam to be a threat and incompatible with the value system of the German constitution.

Europe-wide, there seem to have started a ciounter-movement against the leftistg opinion tyranny of welcoming Islam at all cost, no mmater how high. In several European countries, citizenS initiatives have formed up, forming a front against any more mosqeues and more Muslim migrants. Conservative small parties that are critical of Islam, also some right-.wionged poarties, have scored in national elections and now sit in parliaments. In Holland, meanwhile, the state attorney has skipped all chrages against Geert Wilders, which to rtaise was not his idea anyway, but a rule by a former court's judge who ordered the current trail, overruling a former setence to free Wilders of all the hilarious charges. If the current court follows the state attorney's demand, Wilders will be cleaned of all charges that mistake criticism of a religion with hate crime. On German radio, I heared some useful idiot from some pro-Islamic organisation in Holland already pointing out that freeing Wilders would violate the new EU laws that have been explcitly designed to protect Islam from any form of criticism and questions, and that one would then file a case on the crime of hate speech against Wilders directly at a European court. Actually, this Islamic activist is correct, any Dutch decision to end the Wilders case would villate EU laws indeed - which only shows how inane and totally brain-damaged these EU laws are.

Germany is no racist country, and it is no antri-migration country. A new advertisement over here reads : "our chancellor is female, our foreign minister is gay, our minister of health is Vietnamese". One could add one of our minister presidents is Scottish, and several Turks are holding high offices in the established parties, both on national level and on level of federal states.

I, and most of us, welcome migrants fro other countries - if they are willing to fully integrate instead of sticking to their own cults and habits, and if they have something to offer that our economy needs. We do not welcome people that are unedaucted, do not want to learn and do not want to integrate and instead want to stick with, if not even spread Islam. We need specialised talents. We do not need and can noit afford anymore even more loads of social wellfare-benefitters that represent the social low class even in their own coutnries, and that stay to be that in Germany - at the cost of the community. And that is what the statistics tell us, that is what what differs migrants from China, Japan, Korea, from migrants from Turkey, Albania, Afghanistan. Yes, there are some Turks hwho became successful businessmen and employers. But these example of success and integration and good will towards Germany, are not the rule amongst Turks - they are the rare exception. And that is what is part of the problem.

[SteamWake]

What you dont seem to get is that 'extreme' Muslims do not want to 'intergrate' into whatever culture they are currently in.

In fact quite the opposite they wish for YOU to intergrate into their culture and embrace Sharia law. There is no room for comprimise in their point of view.

[tater]

The PEW study on US Muslims concluded (their headline) that US muslims were "mostly middle class, and mostly mainstream." They were of course completely wrong in the headline. By "mostly mainstream" they apparently decided that if 51%+ of respondents had the "right" (meaning typical American opinion) answer they were therefore mostly mainstream. The problem is that they had only slight majority opinions on ideas where the US population at large has nearly unanimous opinion—like what they think of bin laden, for example. In order to judge vs the population at large, they need a control study that looks at the population at large.

My take is that many do integrate, but many (too many) do not. It would be very useful for INS to study integration as a function of country of origin (since simply using religion is unconstitutional). Religion can be A factor, but not THE factor (same as race may be used as A factor and still avoid quota charges). Look at all immigrants, and set some integration norms. If people from a certain country don't integrate, close immigration from that country, or radically cut the quota, and vet every applicant. In this case you'd be looking for secularists trying to escape their repressive societies, probably.

[Jimbuna]

That was one brave statement to make and one I suspect the majority of German nationals subscribe to.....perhaps replicated throughout most of the western world :hmmm:

[krashkart]

Interesting times ahead.

[Alex]

And France is in the same state. With the exception that no one in here got Merkel's balls (erm) to express his ideas that way.
UTTER shame on our politics.

I wish there was more than the mediterranean/Gibraltar between Africa and western Europe, and more than a few radical countries (when it comes to immigration) between the Middle East and us.

[nikimcbee]

Might as well make my first political post after a long absence a hot topic. :haha:

Welcome back:woot:

Now just to get our dopes in office to realize that:shifty:

[Rockstar]

Granted one immediately thinks of the past when we read about things like this. But does it really mean the past will come back to haunt us once again? I bet big money it will not as most Germans are ashamed to be German and are all too willing hate themselves for the sins of their fathers. There just doesn’t seem to exist a culture where a nationalist movement could take off. Oh there might be a some civil unrest between Germans and Turks in the near future. But most likely the good Germans will just debate and complain beyond measure, but in the end nothing will be done and the Fatherland will just fade away with just a small reminder when the name is changed to Germanistan.

[gimpy117]

I think the main problem is that Muslims want to move away from the turmoil and strife THEY have created, But do not feel as if they should have to change one bit in their new country. Actually, quite the opposite, they feel the new place should change to accommodate them. With all the strife these Muslims have caused in Europe, This statement from Germany does not come as a surprise.

I go to Western Michigan University In the U.S.A, recently, I've seen more and more women with their faces covered in burqua style garb. I can't say I'm too happy about it. It stands as a symbol for oppression of women; something that we in America have worked to end for so long. I would suppose that this all comes with a hint of xenophobia, but then again, the whole idea of coming to america is adopting our culture, not the other way around. I would actually support a ban of the burqua here in the US. too. It's clearly against our freedoms for a man to expect his significant other to wear one.

[Oberon]

Granted one immediately thinks of the past when we read about things like this. But does it really mean the past will come back to haunt us once again? I bet big money it will not as most Germans are ashamed to be German and are all too willing hate themselves for the sins of their fathers. There just doesn’t seem to exist a culture where a nationalist movement could take off. Oh there might be a some civil unrest between Germans and Turks in the near future. But most likely the good Germans will just debate and complain beyond measure, but in the end nothing will be done and the Fatherland will just fade away with just a small reminder when the name is changed to Germanistan.

Oh, I reckon it'll happen again, just not in Germany. Who can say where?

[Rockstar]

No doubt, it can happen again. I just don't think Germany will ever rise like it did in the thirties and forties. If they would stop being so afraid of that shadow and realize sometimes you got to kick some arse. I could almost guarantee the good Chancellor nobody here would complain over some action like that. Heck, I'd even be happy for them if they kept on going down to Greece. Put them lazy gyro eaters to work building a wall around Turkey.

[Diopos]

No doubt, it can happen again. I just don't think Germany will ever rise like it did in the thirties and forties. If they would stop being so afraid of that shadow and realize sometimes you got to kick some arse. I could almost guarantee the good Chancellor nobody here would complain over some action like that. Heck, I'd even be happy for them if they kept on going down to Greece. Put them lazy gyro eaters to work building a wall around Turkey.

One of the reasons those "lazy gyro eaters" got bankrupt was that they were buying German tanks and submarines because of Turkey. The wall is there alright and much more so in Cyprus. And I'm fed up with "greek bashing" so try to keep it civil (I know I am )..

[Tribesman]

Gimpy, with your clothing "adopting of culture" are you going to equally complain about the Hasidics or the Amish?
What about the Mormons, are they un-american?

[tater]

Gimpy, with your clothing "adopting of culture" are you going to equally complain about the Hasidics or the Amish?
What about the Mormons, are they un-american?

This is actually a good point, but tangential to immigration. Those already here, are Americans, and have the right to be as separatist in lifestyle as they wish. They get "grandfathered in." That's why in my post I specifically only mentioned immigration quotas. The number of people from given places is already chosen arbitrarily. This is an avenue where the US can be as discriminatory as we wish (in the good sense of making intelligent choices, unlike, say an indiscriminate immigration policy).

Demographics that have shown themselves to not integrate in whatever arbitrary way we (the electorate) decides is appropriate, can very well (and legally) be denied immigration status. Drop the quota from X thousand from Saudi Arabia to 100 (or whatever).

The mormans is an interesting example of a near theocracy in the US. Luckily our system protects us from state-imposed religion, but in Utah, fro a long time, being LDS was pretty much required or you were in fact within their social structure a 2d class citizen. It's fair to try and prevent this in the future I think.

[krashkart]

Oh, I reckon it'll happen again, just not in Germany. Who can say where?

These days it's mirrored in the words "Kill all Westerners", and "God Hates Fags". :nope: Thankfully the latter have a relatively small following. It's interesting how many psycho elements have come out of the woodwork since 9/11.


Anyway, I'm behind Germany's chancellor on her stance. The immigrants moved to Germany; they should either adapt or go back to where they came from. That should be applicable anywhere in equal measure. If they want us to adapt to their way of life, on our own respective soils, they've got another thing coming.

[gimpy117]

Gimpy, with your clothing "adopting of culture" are you going to equally complain about the Hasidics or the Amish?
What about the Mormons, are they un-american?


the thing is, the Amish and hasidics don't make their women cover their faces.
Also, the men adhere to their "dress code".There seems to be a clear type of clothing that men wear, and a type of clothing that women wear. Since the style of dress is unilateral, I see no reason why it is oppressive. Men in radical Islam do not need to cover their faces...but women do.

Also, like was said before, the Amish have been here for a long time...and they don't expect us to conform to their beliefs. They also don't try to kill people when they depict their god or holy persons.

[Tribesman]

the thing is, the Amish and hasidics don't make their women cover their faces.

What is the difference between covering arms legs or heads and covering faces.
Since your objections are essentialy about the dress code then you must object to all such dress codes being imposed eh?

Also, the men adhere to their "dress code".
So what? Is the dress code very different for women?

Also, like was said before, the Amish have been here for a long time
When did the first Muslim arrive? after all if you want to bend rules so they are based on time then you have to establish a cut off date.

Those already here, are Americans, and have the right to be as separatist in lifestyle as they wish.
There lies the problem tater, baning it for new immigrants doesn't work , plus of course when a new immigrant becomes a citizen he gets equal protection as a citizen so can do exactly what established citizens can do.
I suppose you could go the nativist route but how would that apply to children of immigrant citizens?
It does leave an option though, you can introduce a rather outdated model where you have citizens and 2nd class citizens who don't really count as people.



One thing that always gets me is how people miss a real major factor in all this "intergration" nonsense.
Why is there the problem of 2nd 3rd and 4th generations "reverting" back to something which their immigrant forbears never even were.
Such a simple factor but one which some people are so uncomfortable with as it puts some of the problems created the "other" right back in their own lap as their own creation.

[Betonov]

The main difference between the amish and some german immigrants (the disliked ones) is that there's a substantial difference between a group, that isolates itself because of their reliogus belives and does aboslutely no harm and a group that is living amongst other citizens, tries to inforce their believes, sucks the life out of a country by demanding some serius minority priviliges, even when regular citizens suffer because of them and then at the end of the day protest against the goverment for being racist and nationalistic just because they have to pay same tax levels as regular citizens

the term 'regular citizen' has been used to describe integrated, law abiding, tax paying working inhabitants of a country, be it an immigrant or a 120th generation

[Tribesman]

Betanov, that post provides little of any substance and sounds like vague generalisations taken straight from a very low market tabloid.
Can you perhaps point me to some of these strange muslim protests over tax?
Hey would that mean the muslims are joining the tea party?:rotfl2:

[tater]

Those that are here are here. That's a bridge we have to cross as their population grows. Keep a secular State is the best hope we have.

It is fine to not admit more people from the Muslim world, however. US MUslims are actually more integrated than elsewhere in the world, and the problems tend to be young people who are radicalized—frequently by Muslims from the Muslim world. That's a pattern seens not just in the US, but also in Europe. Kids that grew up in the West radicalized by guys like the blind sheik (trade center bombing in '93).

[Betonov]

Betanov, that post provides little of any substance and sounds like vague generalisations taken straight from a very low market tabloid.
Can you perhaps point me to some of these strange muslim protests over tax?
Hey would that mean the muslims are joining the tea party?:rotfl2:
what's with everyone misspelling my name :hmmm:

they're bitching about having the same social security as the rest, they bitch about having not enough culture centres, they're bitching about having to speak the countries official language at public offices, soon they'll start bitching about the taxes. Shure, it's generalisattion, the only time when one could not generalise is when each and every person is handled one by one. Dou you want a 7 billion people long list on this thread??? You have to put people in groups, but this is only acceptable if one is put in to a group by his actions rather than background. I didnt say all muslims are bad. I like muslims, some of my best friends are muslim immigrants. It's just that some immigrants demand too much without wanting to give something back

[Betonov]

Those that are here are here. That's a bridge we have to cross as their population grows. Keep a secular State is the best hope we have.

It is fine to not admit more people from the Muslim world, however. US MUslims are actually more integrated than elsewhere in the world, and the problems tend to be young people who are radicalized—frequently by Muslims from the Muslim world. That's a pattern seens not just in the US, but also in Europe. Kids that grew up in the West radicalized by guys like the blind sheik (trade center bombing in '93).
A better option would be to make somekind a psychological test, to somehow probe the mind of a newcommer, to see whether he/she is thinking about making a better live for themselves or something sinister.

[Skybird]

A better option would be to make somekind a psychological test, to somehow probe the mind of a newcommer, to see whether he/she is thinking about making a better live for themselves or something sinister.

I have been a clinical psychologist. Forget the idea, it is not possible. And any questionaires you might consider can be cheated by spreading the word on what kind of "right" answers the subject is expected in order to pass the test.

That is one of the problems with the integration test that has been implemented in Germany two years ago - by decision of bureaucratically thinking politicians who do not have a clue on what they were talking about when assuming they could test the willingness to integrate by a test on knowledge about German history and culture (a test of knowledge that even many native Germans would fail to pass, btw. :) ).

I for example could learn American history and the design of the political system and it'S institutions, and I even could answer with the mandatory "yes" when the question is asked wheter or not I believe in a theistic deity (during the interview migrants to the US have to answer with "yes" if they want to get permission for citizenship - so it was reported in a German docu movie some years ago, and confirmed by the American embassy in Berlin). But whether my replies are meant honest and serious or not, and whether I want to do harm to the US or not - remain to be things unanswered by such a "test". It means nothing.

Psycho-Tests only make sense if the subject voluntarily accepts to be honest or has a sufficiently strong own-interest in being honest even if that honesty could lead to failing the test, or is mentally incapable to be dishonest (due to a deranged state of mind). In case of migrants wanting to gain any kind of permission or access, you can safely assume that they have a bigger interest to give the answers that they think will get them what they want, instead of being honest even if that means they fail.

And then there is the psychological problem of internal psychological tension and dissonance - a person can desire to be honest indeed even if that means disadvantages, but then still has to deal with inherent tendencies in it'S cognitions and behavior to give the answers that subconsciously are expected to be the answers that get him/her a passing for that test. It is a variation of the old dilemma that when you are being told to be spontaneous - by that order alone you already can no longer be spontaneous. If you try to be spontaneous because you "try", then you are not - becasue you "try". If you try to be spontaneous because you are being told to be so - you are not, because you follow a demand.

[tater]

Once people are here in the US, they have freedoms ("Natural Rights") they would not have elsewhere in the West. I'll defend their broad 1st Amendment Rights as I defend my broad 2d Amendment Rights, etc. I cannot do otherwise and claim to care about what the US is all about.

Immigration certainly is a tool we can—and should—use to shape the country, however. To use the "melting pot" analogy, we're making our, um, fondue, and we should pick what cheese we want to add. Someone at the pot-luck might well have dropped some limburger into the pot—a tiny amount—and we cannot get rid of that, it's melted in. We can stop dropping any more in though, and maybe keep away from adding other things that won't add to the mix, at least not in large enough quantities to spoil the meal.

This, combined with an incredibly strict separation of church and State (ie: a strict reading of the 1st Amendment), along with an equally strict reading of the rest of the 1st (Freedom of Speech) is enough to deal with the rest, frankly. (the Wilders trial is exactly what we should avoid—it's a measure of the lack of freedom there that he could even be brought to trial for exercising political speech (boggles this American mind). Should he lose—disagree with him or not—it's an indication that freedom of expression is an illusion in places most people had assumed were incredibly liberal ("liberal" in the classical sense, not the partisan sense).

[gimpy117]

What is the difference between covering arms legs or heads and covering faces.
Since your objections are essentialy about the dress code then you must object to all such dress codes being imposed eh?


So what? Is the dress code very different for women?




The thing it, it's not really oppressive. It more of a "we wear dresses out of tradition" rather than a husband making his wife wear a burqua

[tater]

It's difficult to defend a government-imposed dress code. Clearly there are some limits that have survived the courts over the years—women not being allowed to be topless, for example (a dress code that Muslims and Christian fundies can both agree with, apparently ;) ).

The face covering thing is indeed different, however. It masks the identity of the person so dressed. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that anyone wearing a disguise in public should be accepting of the fact that they will be hassled (constantly) by the police. I think private entities in general should also be allowed to discriminate at will, for ANY reason. "No Blacks served here" is fine by me—as is "No Whites served here." Or, "No shoes, no shirt, no service. Also, no service for anyone covering their face."

Yeah, there'd be some discriminatory businesses. They'd be at a disadvantage compared to their competition. It should be a free choice they make.

[Thomen]

Once people are here in the US, they have freedoms ("Natural Rights") they would not have elsewhere in the West. I'll defend their broad 1st Amendment Rights as I defend my broad 2d Amendment Rights, etc. I cannot do otherwise and claim to care about what the US is all about.



Not to be a dick, but exactly what rights do I have, that I don't have anywhere else in the west? I m living in the US since 2004 and still trying to find an area where i am supposed to be more free or have more rights than I did in Germany. If anything else, I felt more secure over there than I do now. I didnt need a Gun to protect my family, and I could leave the house and go the local home improvement store or mall without being mugged.

Is that what freedom and more rights are supposed to be?

[Aramike]

I think the main problem is that Muslims want to move away from the turmoil and strife THEY have created, But do not feel as if they should have to change one bit in their new country. Actually, quite the opposite, they feel the new place should change to accommodate them. With all the strife these Muslims have caused in Europe, This statement from Germany does not come as a surprise.

I go to Western Michigan University In the U.S.A, recently, I've seen more and more women with their faces covered in burqua style garb. I can't say I'm too happy about it. It stands as a symbol for oppression of women; something that we in America have worked to end for so long. I would suppose that this all comes with a hint of xenophobia, but then again, the whole idea of coming to america is adopting our culture, not the other way around. I would actually support a ban of the burqua here in the US. too. It's clearly against our freedoms for a man to expect his significant other to wear one.Wow, well said. I didn't see that one coming from you (although I do disagree wtih the ban on any attire).

[Aramike]

Not to be a dick, but exactly what rights do I have, that I don't have anywhere else in the west? I m living in the US since 2004 and still trying to find an area where i am supposed to be more free or have more rights than I did in Germany. If anything else, I felt more secure over there than I do now. I didnt need a Gun to protect my family, and I could leave the house and go the local home improvement store or mall without being mugged.

Is that what freedom and more rights are supposed to be?If you were a business owner you'd immediately understand that you have greater rights in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't open a store on Sunday, right - not to mention extremely strict hours of permitted operation otherwise.

What about compulsory civil/military service? Or what about the mandatory distribution of half your assets (is this just liquid?) to your nearest relatives despite your will? What about truck driving laws?

What you're talking about is the classic security v. liberty argument. The culture you come from has decided that they prefer security. Our culture has gone for liberty. Like it or not, that means we are a freer nation than most others, with all the problems incumbent upon that freedom.

It is a tradeoff to be sure. Here, we accept the perhaps .0001% chance of getting murdered at any moment in exchange for exapanded freedoms. Germans, for instance, prefer a .000001% chance (those numbers are for dramatization purposes only) so they have further restrictions. Neither side is right or wrong.

For me the discussion falls into what I believe are universally inalienable rights. Ultimately I believe that all rights are subordinate to that of self-determination. Perhaps one can make the argument that, say, gun ownership is inherent to self-determination but I find that to be academic at best, as simply being able to walk down the street in the reasonable manner of your choosing to the reasonable destination of your choosing as more inherent to freedom.

Ultimately that means that none of us should be slaves to any birthright or the determination of another man, and we are only restricted by the impact our decisions would make upon others. The Muslim world does not agree with me on that premise, hence the the worldwide emmigration of not simply the individuals but the culture of Islam which is outright opposed to self-determination especially in the case of gender.

Gimpy has made some excellent points, although I do not agree necessarily with his conclusion. There is way too much "imported oppression" going on, and its typically originating from the Muslim world. The quote from Roosevelt that August posted was excellent, and I agree with it in whole. This goes back to the discussion that Skybird and I have been engaged in for months now, that essentially freedom makes no sense when it is used to destroy itself.

Hence my idea about self-determination being the unalienable human right.

[tater]

Not to be a dick, but exactly what rights do I have, that I don't have anywhere else in the west? I m living in the US since 2004 and still trying to find an area where i am supposed to be more free or have more rights than I did in Germany. If anything else, I felt more secure over there than I do now. I didnt need a Gun to protect my family, and I could leave the house and go the local home improvement store or mall without being mugged.

Is that what freedom and more rights are supposed to be?

Is there a State church in Germany? Even if not powerful as it once may have been, what we'd call a "blue law" in the US, is there separation—explicit—of church and state? How about political speech? Can you be a Nazi in Germany if you like? Hateful as that might be, you cannot ban a party and have free political speech, the two are mutually exclusive. The US never banned the Communist Party (CPUSA) even though it was funded, and completely controlled by Moscow, for example.

[Thomen]

If you were a business owner you'd immediately understand that you have greater rights in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't open a store on Sunday, right - not to mention extremely strict hours of permitted operation otherwise.


What about the employees that want Sundays off? They are SOL because the owner wants the store open on Sundays?

And, I was a business owner over there, and I certainly enjoyed my weekends off.

What you consider freedoms, is nothing more than shifting rights (and freedoms) around for the purpose of profit (which is another freedom, more or less)

It is a toss up between the rights and freedoms of employers and employees. As an employee you have way more rights and freedom in Germany than you have in the US. Isn't that freedom also or are you saying employees should have less freedom for the sake of generating profit for their employer?

More freedom is not necessary equal to making more money for your boss.

However, I can see the flip side to this, and that is the consumer, but then again if we keep following this we go around in a circle.


What about compulsory civil/military service? Or what about the mandatory distribution of half your assets (is this just liquid?) to your nearest relatives despite your will? What about truck driving laws?
Until not too long ago there was also a draft here in the US. Yes, is not longer used, but it was not repealed or anything, it was just not extended any further after it expired the last time around. Even today there is a remnant of this still on the books and is mandatory (Selective Service).


What you're talking about is the classic security v. liberty argument. The culture you come from has decided that they prefer security. Our culture has gone for liberty. Like it or not, that means we are a freer nation than most others, with all the problems incumbent upon that freedom.

It is a tradeoff to be sure. Here, we accept the perhaps .0001% chance of getting murdered at any moment in exchange for exapanded freedoms. Germans, for instance, prefer a .000001% chance (those numbers are for dramatization purposes only) so they have further restrictions. Neither side is right or wrong.
You got a good point there. I'd like to know what would be considered a good mix, though.

IMHO, this whole discussion about which country provides more or less freedom is purely philosophical and definition of freedom depends more often than not on the mindset of the individual. I also do think that there is no 'wrong' or 'right' in this, since it is largely depended on the individual interpretation of freedom.

Is there a State church in Germany? Even if not powerful as it once may have been, what we'd call a "blue law" in the US, is there separation—explicit—of church and state? How about political speech? Can you be a Nazi in Germany if you like? Hateful as that might be, you cannot ban a party and have free political speech, the two are mutually exclusive. The US never banned the Communist Party (CPUSA) even though it was funded, and completely controlled by Moscow, for example.

State church or Religion? I think, the state religion is Christianity, but don't ask me which denomination. Since nobody can force you to follow it, it is a rather mood argument and i never cared for it either way.

You actually can be a Nazi if you like, you are just not allowed to publicly spread your dogma, which, as you rightly noted can be seen as an infringement.

The ban of the Nazi parties was more on the grounds of hate speech and criminal activity ( please correct me if I am wrong), than anything else, I think. Even in the US, you can get into trouble for this.

[tater]

Right now hate crime laws add penalty for actual crimes committed. That is still wrong IMHO, killing someone is just as bad if you yell "roast beef!" while killing them as if you yell "faggot!"

I honestly don't know about Europe in general, but the mere fact that Wilders could be charged at all for what he said regarding Muslims is impossible in the US.

The price of freedom of political speech and general expression is that you have to hear stuff that offends you sometimes. Better to have everyone offended, than have everyone have to shut up.

[Thomen]

Right now hate crime laws add penalty for actual crimes committed. That is still wrong IMHO, killing someone is just as bad if you yell "roast beef!" while killing them as if you yell "faggot!"

I honestly don't know about Europe in general, but the mere fact that Wilders could be charged at all for what he said regarding Muslims is impossible in the US.

The price of freedom of political speech and general expression is that you have to hear stuff that offends you sometimes. Better to have everyone offended, that everyone shut up.

See, i do agree with you, 100 gaziilion %.. but unfortunately, reality is somewhat different and I do not think it will change anytime soon.

[Aramike]

What about the employees that want Sundays off? They are SOL because the owner wants the store open on Sundays? You have got to be kidding...

The employer (who risks everything) should be beholden to the employee (who risks nothing) when that employee has the freedom at any time to leave their job?

Because they want a specific day off?

Really?And, I was a business owner over there, and I certainly enjoyed my weekends off.But you weren't FREE to do otherwise.

This is a discussion about freedom, not personal preference. If you want the latter to dictate society be prepared to outlaw gays, athiesm and all religions not Christian, salt, etc.It is a toss up between the rights and freedoms of employers and employees. As an employee you have way more rights and freedom in Germany than you have in the US. Isn't that freedom also or are you saying employees should have less freedom for the sake of generating profit for their employer?You DO know what the term "freedom" means, right? Hint: it has nothing to do with the subjective concept of convienience. Employees in the US as just as free to not work a job that requires weekend work as they are free to CHOOSE such a job.

What you propose is eliminating that freedom altogether, because YOU like your weekends off. I honestly can't believe I'm actually reading that...Until not too long ago there was also a draft here in the US. Yes, is not longer used, but it was not repealed or anything, it was just not extended any further after it expired the last time around. Even today there is a remnant of this still on the books and is mandatory (Selective Service).Umm, okay? Your point?

Word check: compulsory. All German males MUST perform this service. How does that equate to the Selective Service system which is not used?

Sorry to be harsh in my earlier comments this post, but really? :cool:

[Thomen]

You have got to be kidding...

The employer (who risks everything) should be beholden to the employee (who risks nothing) when that employee has the freedom at any time to leave their job?

Because they want a specific day off?

Really?But you weren't FREE to do otherwise.

This is a discussion about freedom, not personal preference. If you want the latter to dictate society be prepared to outlaw gays, athiesm and all religions not Christian, salt, etc.You DO know what the term "freedom" means, right? Hint: it has nothing to do with the subjective concept of convienience. Employees in the US as just as free to not work a job that requires weekend work as they are free to CHOOSE such a job.

What you propose is eliminating that freedom altogether, because YOU like your weekends off. I honestly can't believe I'm actually reading that...Umm, okay? Your point?

Word check: compulsory. All German males MUST perform this service. How does that equate to the Selective Service system which is not used?

Sorry to be harsh in my earlier comments this post, but really? :cool:

You know what.. you are right. There is no other free country, and freedom is purely as you define it. :yeah:

[Betonov]

I have been a clinical psychologist. Forget the idea, it is not possible. And any questionaires you might consider can be cheated by spreading the word on what kind of "right" answers the subject is expected in order to pass the test.
too bad. maybe we will be able to implement something like this when technology improves.

And about the ongoing debate about liberty.
I dont feel any less free than I would be in the US. Stores are opened on sundays, I can travel anywhere I want whenever I want, no curfews... the only liberty missing is the freeedom from idiotic politicians.

[Aramike]

You know what.. you are right. There is no other free country, and freedom is purely as you define it. :yeah:Freedom means something specific. While no society can be completely "free" (the very terms society and freedom are in a sense antithetical) the society which, by and large, provides its people's with the greatest ability of self-determination is the society which is the most free.

Not being able to open your store on Sunday runs counter-intuitive to that notion. Not being able to even make the choice to work or not work for such an employer also runs against that notion.

However, I think you're mischaracterizing my point. I'm not suggesting that cultural differences in the amount of self-determination is wrong - but I am suggesting that such differences are examples of one society being less free than another.

[Penguin]

Whether or not these new slogans by Merkel and Seehofer are something more than just lip-confessions born by mere opportunism, remains to be seen.


e****ingxactly!
Wow, Merkel contributes something to a discussion which is going on since years!
Like everything coming from the Merkel-regime her words have to be taken with some kilos of salt. So what does Merkel want, besides the demand that immigrants should learn the language of the country where they live - which is such a minimalistic demand it doesn't even need to be mentioned, it's a matter of course? What are the values which define Germany?
Tada: here's the answer: she is talking about that anyone who doesn't accept the christian conception of man (Menschenbild) has no place in Germany! Go and choke on a broom, Angie!

[Skybird]

Merkel is an intellectual void, and it often seems to me that her past as FDJ propaganda chief secretary overrides her behaviour as a physics scientist by far: many word shells at home to secure her power, little linkup to realities, plus a pathologic craving for unconditional harmony on the international stage to demonstrate that No, Germany still has not become the international rogue again and still is so very very sorry - look how cute and kind we are today. How she just has allowed ONCE AGAIN to get bamboozeled by Sarkozy, still leaves me fuming, and the damage there not only is straight breaking of earlier promises, but represents a damage to the German basic interests that what she accepted there without any realistic, solid compensation, borders high treason. Who needs enemies with leaders like her, giving up our most vital interests, like she does, and repeatedly now - for nothing substantial in return? In the long run, we will transfer additional billions and hundreds of billions (additional to those that we are already doomed to pay), due to her unability to bear diplomatic conflict.

What a zero. I thought Schröder was a bad chancellor. But Merkel easily represents the worst and most naive chancellorship I have experienced in my adult life since my youth years in the 80s. Internationally, her missionary spirit (glorious German example alone should heal the climate and and serve as a model for others of how to mean it well with all and everybody, and don'T we mean it oh so very very well indeed...) and her naivety, is unbelievable.

To think that 5 years ago I hoped that due to her academic background and my conclusion on her sober, rational mindset (hahahahaha...) she might turn out to be compared to Thatcher (not that I'm a fan of Thatcher) - how wrong I was.

One of the already very few occasions when I dared to invest some trust into a politician in advance - the well-deserved penalty once again followed soon after. Moral of the story: one does not invest trust in career politicians - NEVER.

[Penguin]

Sky, what do you mean by giving in to Sakorzy? I can't remember what she did with the dwarf.

Being in strong opposition of atomic power I have seen Merkel as a tool before, at the time she was minister for the environment. Regardless of your stance towards atomic energy, as a minister she managed to screw up a screwed-up law even more - if someone remembers what a cluster**** our deposit laws were and still are today to a certain degree. She already showed her typical behaviour at this time: bowing to the industry, giving a damn about the people whom she is supposed to work for. Hell, even before, as minister for the youth, one could notice how naive and away from reality she was. Reading tip for the german-speakers: an interview with Angela from '94: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelspecial/d-52691500.html :haha:

Last week I heard the german comedian Volker Pispers talk about Merkel's solution to anything. When adressing any problem she always says: "We must all work together on this!" Extremely funny if you check out any speeches from her: it is really true, always the same sentence with no substance.

[Skybird]

Sky, what do you mean by giving in to Sakorzy? I can't remember what she did with the dwarf.



http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,723937,00.html


Europe's attempt to adopt strict new budget rules to prevent a repeat of the euro debt crisis has suffered a setback because Germany has given in to France on the key issue of imposing automatic sanctions against deficit wrongdoers, German commentators say.


Following talks between France and Germany, EU finance ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday agreed on a compromise under which ministers from member states will continue to have a say in whether fines should be imposed -- a level of political involvement that commentators fear could leave the reformed pact almost as toothless as the old one.

Germany had backed a proposal by the European Commission (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,720479,00.html) for an automatic process of sanctions to kick in at a certain point if countries persistently exceed the EU's budget deficit ceiling of 3 percent of GDP. France opposed that change, and got its way. In return, France agreed to a medium-term amendment of the EU treaty to allow the bloc to withdraw voting rights from member states that break the rules. But it will take years for the amendment to be agreed and ratified.

That planned amendement is nothing else but just a declaration of intent. An dit will become nothing more than that, becasue it needs a majority for chnaging the European trteaties - those treaties that nobody wants to fiddle wiuth again because last time it took them years and several attempts to et it pushed through.

The French, howebver, since long seek to increase the influence of politics - French politics, that is - on the EU's currency and economy polciies, and the finance markets, that way gainingdominance over these areas that by economic weight they cannot hope to ever acchieve all by themselves.

Merkel got nothing, and Sarkozy got everyting he wanted.

Also, deficit violators will continue to have a say on the sanctions for there offences. That way, the fox again has been put in charge of the henhouse. Who will need to pay for that the most money of all? Right, Germany. Once again Merkel has agreed to let the Euro-union become a pure financial transfer union.

I do not see a realsitic chnce for it bcoming ture, but I wish Germjany would skip this damn Eurpo and leave the currency union, and at best the whole EU as well. It would do damage to German economy, yes., But I think the longrun staying within the EU and the Euro union costs Germany even more - much more. And while currently it seems that Germany has made it better than any other Western nation through the crisis of the past 2 or 3 years, the cost has been high: our budget is highly defiictary (3 years ago we hoped to acchiuece a balanced budget in 2010, mind you), and the state debts have exploded to a level that does not make us trail far behind the US anymore.

Merkel seems to think that Germany still can afford what as a matter of fact already is destroying us. She either overestimates us - or she has no idea of what else to do, that desperate things are.

[conus00]

"Melting pot" FTW.

"Multiculturalism" didn't need to be coined as a word when they already had the right word ready to use: "Balkanization."

Immigration should be a contract. The nation taking the immigrants promises to treat the newcomers fairly, and as valued members of society—they promise the immigrants that after the process is complete, they are no different than a family that has been there for centuries. In return, the immigrants have the responsibility to integrate themselves into that society as well as they can. If they have values that are fundamentally at odds with that nation, they should in good faith not bother immigrating there. If it is found that a significant % of applicants from a certain country fail to integrate acceptably, then the quotas from those states should be slashed (and the applicants vetted for factors that improve their chances of integration), or even cut to zero.

That's actually great idea tater :yeah:

[Betonov]

"Melting pot" FTW.

"Multiculturalism" didn't need to be coined as a word when they already had the right word ready to use: "Balkanization."

Immigration should be a contract. The nation taking the immigrants promises to treat the newcomers fairly, and as valued members of society—they promise the immigrants that after the process is complete, they are no different than a family that has been there for centuries. In return, the immigrants have the responsibility to integrate themselves into that society as well as they can. If they have values that are fundamentally at odds with that nation, they should in good faith not bother immigrating there. If it is found that a significant % of applicants from a certain country fail to integrate acceptably, then the quotas from those states should be slashed (and the applicants vetted for factors that improve their chances of integration), or even cut to zero.
Also agree :yeah:

[Tribesman]

Two agreements with taters post, but unfortunately it neglects the human creature in the equation which scuppers the idea presented in the post.
Its a reason why second and third generation citizens become something their immigrant parents or grandparents never were in the first place.